User Tag List

Page 119 of 162 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121129 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1614

Thread: 3rd wave feminism

  1. #1181
    Raag Array Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    You go girl! Stand up for what you believe in and don't let anyone tell you your beliefs might have some unfortunate implications...






    I guess you aren't the first to run that script either
    But god damn it, it would be beautiful if you were the last...
    Thankfully, I measure implications through evidence and results, not by weighing the words of the uninformed and the ignorant. It's worked out well so far.

  2. #1182
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Thankfully, I measure implications through evidence and results, not by weighing the words of the uninformed and the ignorant. It's worked out well so far.
    Then do it - So far a few feminists here hammered that little blanket statement, and yet not a single one has shown much for it. Most of the research and evidence brought up in this thread was brought fourth by me, with sources ranging from completely neutral to those of outright feminist, Spanky has brought a couple, even jix does it occasionally - he tends to be a bit less discriminatory with sources but he at least brought forth something. You do realize the word evidence isn't meant to be used the same way as "The Force" in Star Wars right? No matter how much someone tells you "May the evidence be with you" It doesn't become true by the power of repetition alone (Edit: Actually that probably wouldn't work in Star Wars either... Unless we treat it like you'd need to treat evidence and just pick and choose to ignore the prequel trilogy. See fiction is the place where doing that just to tell yourself a better story is actually ok).

  3. #1183
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Women are systematically victimized. You can see that as a weakness, as a distaste, which says more about you, and the effect patriarchy has already had on you, than any commentary on the ones you're pointing your finger at. It doesn't negate that fact that, even being victimized, women can and often do, have agency and the power for change, and that often, the very act of being oppressed pushes women, and men, who see and experience such systematic oppression, to advocate for change.

    What I reject is your interpretation of 'claiming victimhood', and whatever sexist representation you are @Jarlaxle want to press upon us, that being victimized means claiming a whole identity of victimhood, of helplessness, of a lack of agency, of allowing it to happen.

    It's a telling echo of the same narrative that women have heard in rape cases. "Are you saying you are a victim?!!" An accusation, an insult, a statement of incredulity.

    But I won't expect you to understand the difference, as evidenced by your wonderfully intelligent, and astute contribution to this thread.

    You guys are not the first, nor the last, who will run that script. It actually validates why we need feminism, more than ever. With perspectives like yours around.

    So, thank you.
    1. Patriarchy is a myth and there is no patriarchy oppressing me or you or anyone for that matter, just because someone doesn't agree with your claims is not proof of a patriarchy.
    2. No one in their right mind are systematically victimizing women in our society except for feminists themselves you are delusional.
    3. Women have agency of power because they were handed special privileges by the government such as enforcing unjust child support support robbing men of their income
    4. No one here is saying that women who are raped are not the victim, it's you feminists who are blame men as a whole for raping women when most men are not interested in such sick things.
    5. You are on a rant here of emotional nonsense please use some logic and explain some specific instances of accusations and victimhood so you sound less like a child and more like a rational human being.
    6. Stop accusing anyone who doesn't agree with your claims as a "sexist".

  4. #1184
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Then do it - So far a few feminists here hammered that little blanket statement, and yet not a single one has shown much for it. Most of the research and evidence brought up in this thread was brought fourth by me, with sources ranging from completely neutral to those of outright feminist, Spanky has brought a couple, even jix does it occasionally - he tends to be a bit less discriminatory with sources but he at least brought forth something. You do realize the word evidence isn't meant to be used the same way as "The Force" in Star Wars right? No matter how much someone tells you "May the evidence be with you" It doesn't become true by the power of repetition alone (Edit: Actually that probably wouldn't work in Star Wars either... Unless we treat it like you'd need to treat evidence and just pick and choose to ignore the prequel trilogy. See fiction is the place where doing that just to tell yourself a better story is actually ok).
    I've shown more evidence than anyone in this thread.

  5. #1185
    Senior Member Array Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Thankfully, I measure implications through evidence and results, not by weighing the words of the uninformed and the ignorant. It's worked out well so far.
    Results like the 77% gender wage gap? Results like 79% of suicides being females? Results like 91% of domestic violence victims being female?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #1186
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    I've shown more evidence than anyone in this thread.
    In quantity, yes. But I doubt most feminists - even moderate ones - are as open to hearing statistical claims from sources that have "MGTOW" or "Voice For Men" in their name. Even I wasn't initially, my journey here started from fact checking various claims by both sides, it's merely that the result of fact checking one side turned out to be very different from the result of fact checking the other. For these kind of discussions, you need to find neutral sources as much as possible (Sure, some of the really crazy ones might still decide that the american beuro of statistics is another evil conspiring finger of the patriarchy, but that level of crazy isn't composed of people who are going to change their mind anyway, your best bet when arguing with those kind of extremists is to expose them for what they are).

    It is interesting though, the way they use "the facts are with us" like an empty political slogan. Earlier in the discussion, we've seen a few on the feminists side argue that joint custody is the default, petting each other on the back and agreeing how sad it is that people are so misinformed about the subject. A few even did so while complaining about how child support demands aren't tough enough, without even taking a second to stop to think about that means (That was the red flag that sent me on a research run).... Up until I pulled out the actual numbers, and even then some tried in rep comments rationalizing them away. It's a bit like "facts" are measured by a consensus of other people who think like you agreeing on what they are, without any inspection of actual facts.
    More so, it's not just here. In the original statement by the national organization of women, they outright say "Father's rights groups continue to push for this legislation in spite of the body of evidence that in the majority of cases, joint custody is not in the best interest of the children", Yet they cite not a single source or body of research that actually says that, and as I've shown earlier, the moment you look for actual research making a distinction between joint legal custody and joint physical custody and inspecting the results of joint physical custody, the evidence are exactly the opposite of what they claim - surprise surprise - kids are healthier when they can have equal access to both parents. This isn't some random feminist on a forum or tumblr somewhere, this is as top ranking as it gets, making political decisions based on "The facts are with me" statements yet making no effort to actually check them, and yet I am willing to bet she had other feminists in her organization petting her back to tell her how sad it is people are so ignorant and misinformed. With this kind of thing, "Facts and evidence" has turned into the cultural motif of the academically stylized but practically ignorant, statements that have lost all meaning.

  7. #1187
    Raag Array Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,905

    Default

    I'll bite, since you seem to be the paragon of "EVIDENCE":


    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post

    Even I wasn't initially, my journey here started from fact checking various claims by both sides, it's merely that the result of fact checking one side turned out to be very different from the result of fact checking the other.
    LOL! Let's see this in action, shall we?

    For these kind of discussions, you need to find neutral sources as much as possible (Sure, some of the really crazy ones might still decide that the american beuro of statistics is another evil conspiring finger of the patriarchy, but that level of crazy isn't composed of people who are going to change their mind anyway, your best bet when arguing with those kind of extremists is to expose them for what they are).
    Okay, then.

    Even I wasn't initially, my journey here started from fact checking various claims by both sides, it's merely that the result of fact checking one side turned out to be very different from the result of fact checking the other.
    Are you sure you "fact-checked"? Or, did you cherry-pick whatever aligned with your agenda, and, conveniently fail to exclude those that didn't? Like you've been doing for the whole of your responses in this thread?



    Earlier in the discussion, we've seen a few on the feminists side argue that joint custody is the default, petting each other on the back and agreeing how sad it is that people are so misinformed about the subject. A few even did so while complaining about how child support demands aren't tough enough, without even taking a second to stop to think about that means (That was the red flag that sent me on a research run)....
    Can you quote those posts? I'd be really interested to see this. I wouldn't want it to be another instance of what you did to my post, claiming that I said that the plight of modern women is the same as black slaves in pre-civil war America. You know....misrepresentation.

    In the original statement by the national organization of women, they outright say "Father's rights groups continue to push for this legislation in spite of the body of evidence that in the majority of cases, joint custody is not in the best interest of the children",
    Cherry picking example #1, to misrepresent (which alternatively, could be poor understanding/lack of understanding). I can't tell which one your angle is. Are you smart enough to misrepresent, or....?

    The relevant bit, to put your hanging out-of-context quote, into, well...context:

    Jarlaxle doing his thang!

    "In the original statement by the national organization of women, they outright say "Father's rights groups continue to push for this legislation in spite of the body of evidence that in the majority of cases, joint custody is not in the best interest of the children", "
    To set the record straight:

    The National Organization for Women, New York State, Inc. strongly urges the Assembly and Senate of New York to oppose this legislation. This bill seeks to "create the statutory of presumption of joint custody for all minor children whose parents are no longer married, so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children's upbringing."

    "Shared Parenting" is defined as "the award of custody to both parties so that both parties share equally the legal responsibility and control of such child and share equally the living experience in time and physical care of assure frequent and continuing contact with both parties, as the court deems to be in the best interests of the child, taking into consideration the location and circumstances of each party."

    The assertion that "shared parenting is in the best interests of minor children" is on its face untrue and is directly contradicted by the body of academic research on this subject, as well as the disastrous experience of California (one of the first states to adopt this experiment).

    The following facts continue to be true with respect to mandatory joint custody of the children:

    * To arbitrarily reassign a child's primary caregiver, or disrupt a child's attachment to a primary caregiver creates an unstable, even traumatic situation for the children.

    * Increased father involvement does not necessarily result in positive outcomes for children. This involvement by the father will have positive consequences only when it is the arrangement of choice for the particular family and when there is a relatively cooperative and low conflict relationship between the parents.

    * In families where there is a high level of conflict between the mother and father, joint custody arrangements are harmful to children, placing them in the middle of ongoing bickering and a stressful, unstable environment with no escape.

    * Where there is domestic violence, joint custody/shared parenting arrangements are NEVER appropriate.

    * Legislating "shared parenting" will not make it so, or guaranty continued relationships between fathers and children.

    * Joint Custody bills have been designed to establish rights without responsibilities. Joint custody facilitates using the children to maintain access to a former partner and ongoing control of their life. Father's rights groups continue to push for this legislation in spite of the body of evidence that in the majority of cases, joint custody is not in the best interest of the children.

    * Fathers Rights groups continue to promote the myth that courts are biased in favor of mothers. In litigated cases, father who sue for custody almost always win. In fact, fathers are often awarded sole custody even when sexual and physical abuse of the children is alleged and substantiated. According to The American Judges Association, 70% of the time the abuser convinces the court to give him custody.

    * Existing law currently says that there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so. Legislators should be aware that the reason that more mothers have custody after divorce is that most arrangements are worked out between the parents. 95% of the litigated cases, including matrimonial cases, are settled out of court.

    * Legislation providing for mandated joint custody ignores the issues of domestic abuse, including child abuse. Mothers are too often held more accountable by Child Protective Services for child abuse perpetrated by the father, than the fathers themselves are. Mothers often accused of Parental Alienation Syndrome, discourages women from protecting their children since raising the issue of child abuse leads to retaliatory accusations of alienating the children, and frequently, to an award of custody to the abusive father.

    The National Organization for Women-New York State, Inc. is in favor of primary caregiver presumption. This means that the parent who assumed primary responsibility for the children during the marriage, either father or mother, should continue to be the custodial parent.

    Establishment of a presumption of joint custody is harmful to the children. NOW New York State urges the passage of primary caretaker legislation, a realistic solution for children. NOW New York State urges the New York Legislators to defeat A00330/S291 and to look to research regarding the damage to children by passing mandated joint custody. Specifically: Richard Neely, former Chief Justice of the West Virginia Court of Appeals, citing West Virginia primary caretaker presumption law and its effectiveness.



    Source: Source: NOW-New York State Oppose Legislation
    What it means is that the presumption of the court should not default to joint custody, but primary custody granted to the PRIMARY CAREGIVER, WHETHER IT BE MALE OR FEMALE. It is putting the CHILD'S RIGHTS, above the WOMAN'S RIGHTS or the MAN'S RIGHTS.


    This isn't some random feminist on a forum or tumblr somewhere, this is as top ranking as it gets, making political decisions based on "The facts are with me" statements yet making no effort to actually check them, and yet I am willing to bet she had other feminists in her organization petting her back to tell her how sad it is people are so ignorant and misinformed. With this kind of thing, "Facts and evidence" has turned into the cultural motif of the academically stylized but practically ignorant, statements that have lost all meaning.

    By the way, this patriarchy that you seem to think is a made-up thing, is actually what disadvantages fathers in such custody battle. Because in typical straight marriages, the gender roles that play out: breadwinners and the nurturers/homemakers/primary caregivers of children, are the basis of what that argument hinges on.

    Do you want me to give you a statistic on which gender is typically the primary caregiver? Three guesses about this gender role.

    Is it fair? No.
    What can be done? Equalizing the gender roles in straight marriages, perhaps, which can equalize the inevitable fallout in divorce proceedings. Encourage males by navigating their consumption of the masculine image to be one of empowerment at the idea of being a nurturer, not only just a he-man protector, rather than seeing it as a female's role, a 'weaker' role. When society hounds men with the idea that women are meant to be the nurturer, it denies them a critical role in their children's life. Alternatively, encourage women to have a career, outside of their home, if they want. Do not shun a woman as a 'bad mother' if she goes to work, leaving little kids behind. There's a start....

    Reminds me of a friend who had a young daughter (2 years) at home, and came out with us one night.
    Acquaintance of hers, "Where's [Little Girl's Name]?"
    Friend, "She's at home with her father."
    Acquaintance, "Ah, you got [husband's name] to be on babysitting duty tonight, I see."
    Friend, "He's her father. That's not called babysitting. That's called taking care of your own kid."

    Now, guess the likelihood of assumption by the general populace, of a mother staying at home watching her kid, while the husband has a night off with his buds, and people thinking that the mother has sacrificed on behalf of the father, by 'babysitting' her own damn kid for the night.

    It's as harmless, yet insidious, as that.

  8. #1188
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What it means is that the presumption of the court should not default to joint custody, but primary custody granted to the PRIMARY CAREGIVER, WHETHER IT BE MALE OR FEMALE. It is putting the CHILD'S RIGHTS, above the WOMAN'S RIGHTS or the MAN'S RIGHTS.
    You presented some evidence yes. Yet your conclusion on the basis of the evidence is opinion. (The blue text, above.) I see a lot of posturing, but no substantial argument, here. I see a significant bias in terms of considering the "primary caregiver" the one who isn't taking care of the expenses. Which in turn means that your bias is in favor of the one who must be supported financially by the other.

    It's as if no one has heard of "child care". You know, that thing that working single mothers do. That working single fathers could do just as well.

    By the way, this patriarchy that you seem to think is a made-up thing, is actually what disadvantages fathers in such custody battle. Because in typical straight marriages, the gender roles that play out: breadwinners and the nurturers/homemakers/primary caregivers of children, are the basis of what that argument hinges on.

    Do you want me to give you a statistic on which gender is typically the primary caregiver? Three guesses about this gender role.
    More opinion and assertion. You just assume "patriarchy" and work from there. You effectively admit your bias w/r to your prior assertions.

    Is it fair? No.
    What can be done? Equalizing the gender roles in straight marriages, perhaps, which can equalize the inevitable fallout in divorce proceedings. Encourage males by navigating their consumption of the masculine image to be one of empowerment at the idea of being a nurturer, not only just a he-man protector, rather than seeing it as a female's role, a 'weaker' role. When society hounds men with the idea that women are meant to be the nurturer, it denies them a critical role in their children's life. Alternatively, encourage women to have a career, outside of their home, if they want. Do not shun a woman as a 'bad mother' if she goes to work, leaving little kids behind. There's a start....
    In other words, in order to gain fairness, in your opinion, men should become more feminine. Of course, you don't regard this as absurd at all.

    At least you admit that it isn't fair. That's kind of the point. It isn't. Eventually, this will be admitted in legal venues as well, at which point it will become fair.

    Reminds me of a friend who had a young daughter (2 years) at home, and came out with us one night.
    Acquaintance of hers, "Where's [Little Girl's Name]?"
    Friend, "She's at home with her father."
    Acquaintance, "Ah, you got [husband's name] to be on babysitting duty tonight, I see."
    Friend, "He's her father. That's not called babysitting. That's called taking care of your own kid."

    Now, guess the likelihood of assumption by the general populace, of a mother staying at home watching her kid, while the husband has a night off with his buds, and people thinking that the mother has sacrificed on behalf of the father, by 'babysitting' her own damn kid for the night.

    It's as harmless, yet insidious, as that.
    These are not coherent, fact-based, evidence-based arguments.

    This is just posturing. You beg the question over and over again, and prove Jarlaxle's points for him.

    To be clear, I'm not arguing for MGTOW or MRA (both of which I regard as absurd, but not for the reasons you would), nor am I arguing "anti-feminism". I'm arguing "the current legal situation isn't fair for men," and you, by your statements, essentially agree with me. You think it shouldn't be fair as long as men insist on being masculine.

    Oh, I'm sorry, you indicated that men insist on being a "he-man protector". "Masculine" is too literate for such lesser beings. Why would anyone ever think your statements are biased, when it's all just obvious evidence-based truth?



    I'm actually kind of disappointed, Qre:us. I was expecting some substantive arguments from you, not this paper-mache pretend argument that can be knocked over by a clumsy fourth-grader.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SD45T-2 liked this post

  9. #1189
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    What about third wave of black metal

  10. #1190
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Do you want me to give you a statistic on which gender is typically the primary caregiver? Three guesses about this gender role.
    As far as the court is concerned the mother is by default, without having to sue for custody (Unlike the father). Which is why this statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What it means is that the presumption of the court should not default to joint custody, but primary custody granted to the PRIMARY CAREGIVER, WHETHER IT BE MALE OR FEMALE.
    Is as pointless as it is ridicules - "It is regardless if it's male or female" + "Oh btw it's by default female"... Are you really so easily challenged that the connection is beyond you? Are you going to argue that NOW wasn't aware of that at the time? I didn't expect much from you before, but this is a few levels lower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    It is putting the CHILD'S RIGHTS, above the WOMAN'S RIGHTS or the MAN'S RIGHTS.
    Actually, it's [A near sighted version of] women's rights at the the expense of children. But thank you - by taking it without the slightest grain of salt or bothering to check, you've served to illustrate how the notion that "the facts are with them" spreads around without backup, and if you would have paid attention (Or were able to understand the context I was speaking in, since this seems to be a repetition), I was using it as an example for how - much like you have done previously - even high ranking members of feminist organizations hold to that belief without the slightest effort of fact checking. The fact they did so in the context of making destructive political decisions doesn't distract from that, it's kind of the point.

    You've already accused me of misrepresenting what you've said before admitting the very point of my representation of what you've said, failing to show that I misrepresented your words and yet using it as a basis for misrepresenting now... I don't suppose you'd flex your mind to include the above either. It's this kind of unfortunate thickness that perpetuates a very low opinion of most of your brood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    By the way, this patriarchy that you seem to think is a made-up thing, is actually what disadvantages fathers in such custody battle. Because in typical straight marriages, the gender roles that play out: breadwinners and the nurturers/homemakers/primary caregivers of children, are the basis of what that argument hinges on.
    And the fact that definition requires including NOW as a major finger of the patriarchy doesn't bother your mind the slightest... Amazing.

    At this point taking you seriously just isn't fair to feminism.

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •